Facts
- Chip Ward was the president of Concept Sciences, Inc., a facility that processed hydroxylamine, a highly hazardous chemical.
- OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard applies to processes involving listed chemicals at or above threshold quantities in Appendix A.
- Appendix A listed hydroxylamine with a threshold quantity but did not state a minimum concentration, unlike certain other listed chemicals.
- The facility allegedly handled a hydroxylamine solution at approximately 86.5% concentration.
- A catastrophic explosion occurred during hydroxylamine handling at the facility.
- The United States brought criminal charges alleging Ward willfully violated OSHA’s PSM requirements based on OSHA’s interpretation that the process was covered despite the absence of a specified concentration for hydroxylamine.
Issues
- Whether 29 C.F.R. § 1910.119 and Appendix A gave clear notice that a process involving an 86.5% hydroxylamine solution was covered when Appendix A specified no minimum concentration for hydroxylamine.
- Whether the government could sustain a criminal, “willful” OSHA violation using an agency interpretation that was not clearly expressed in the regulatory text or supported by regulatory history.
Decision
- The court rejected the government’s effort to impose criminal liability based on OSHA’s asserted interpretation of PSM coverage for hydroxylamine mixtures.
- The court treated Appendix A’s omission of a hydroxylamine concentration as creating genuine ambiguity on whether mixtures were covered.
- Because the asserted coverage theory was not clearly disclosed by the regulation and was not resolved by regulatory history, it could not support a willful criminal prosecution.
Legal Principles
- Criminal enforcement of regulations requires fair notice; ambiguous regulatory language cannot be used, after the fact, to expand criminal liability through agency interpretation.
- In criminal cases, interpretive deference to an agency cannot substitute for clear regulatory prohibitions where liberty is at stake.
- Where a regulation is genuinely ambiguous about coverage, courts resolve the ambiguity in the defendant’s favor (rule-of-lenity and fair-notice principles).
- A charge requiring “willfulness” presupposes that the defendant had, or should have had, clear notice that the regulation applied to the conduct at issue.
Conclusion
The court concluded that OSHA’s PSM regulation did not clearly notify regulated parties that hydroxylamine mixtures at the concentration used were covered when Appendix A set no minimum concentration for hydroxylamine, and it therefore refused to sustain a willful criminal prosecution resting on an interpretive theory not grounded in clear regulatory text or history.